Chief Joseph and SargonII ties up Book of Mormon DNA

[_Lemmie]

How bout we go back to Lemmie's question a few posts upthread.

Before you move on to another source, could you comment on the Smithsonian article, and why you used it to support a theory when the article comes to virtually the opposite conclusion, effectively discrediting your theory?

You've posted quite a few times now without answering the above question, so can I interpret your refusal to answer questions about the Smithsonian article to mean that you are retracting it as a reference?

[_bomgeography]

How bout we go back to Lemmie's question a few posts upthread.

Before you move on to another source, could you comment on the Smithsonian article, and why you used it to support a theory when the article comes to virtually the opposite conclusion, effectively discrediting your theory?

You've posted quite a few times now without answering the above question, so can I interpret your refusal to answer questions about the Smithsonian article to mean that you are retracting it as a reference?

They have a THEORY and I have a theory the only difference is that my theory is backed up dna and cultural evidence. Their theory is backed up by opinions.

[_SteelHead]

You didn't read the article, did you? Please quote from the article you linked where it talks about transoceanic voyages.

I did read the article and it matches up with what I'm saying dna evidence does not match up with world migrations theory.

"The prevailing theory is that the first Americans arrived in a single wave, and all Native American populations today descend from this one group of adventurous founders. But now there’s a kink in that theory. The latest genetic analyses back up skeletal studies suggesting that some groups in the Amazon share a common ancestor with indigenous Australians and New Guineans. "

"Reich’s lab, noticed that the Suruí and Karitiana people of the Amazon had stronger ties to indigenous groups in Australasia—Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders—than to Eurasians"

"There’s just one problem: Evidence of Population y doesn’t persist in modern Eurasian groups, nor does it seem to show up in other Native Americans. If Aleutian Islanders or their ancestors had somehow mixed with an Australasian group up north or made their way south to the Amazon, they'd leave genetic clues along the way. “It’s not a clear alternative,” argues Reich. "


says Skoglund. “And these founding populations connect indigenous groups in far apart places of the world.”

One thing this article does not talk about is that sweet potatoes arrived in south America from Polynesia long before Columbus discovered the America. As stated the cultural and dna evidence does not match up with the dating of the populating of the Americas.

This article says nothing about transoceanic voyages. Nor does it mention any DNA newer than 10K years ago, it does mention a wave of Austalasian DNA mingling in across Beringia. You seem incapable of actually reading what an article says and instead glean out little bits, out of context, to incorrectly support you un-evidenced pet theories.

And you are backwards on the sweet potatoes, they went from Central/South America where they were first cultivated (5K+ years) to Polynesia (1K or so).

[_Lemmie]

How bout we go back to Lemmie's question a few posts upthread.

Before you move on to another source, could you comment on the Smithsonian article, and why you used it to support a theory when the article comes to virtually the opposite conclusion, effectively discrediting your theory?

You've posted quite a few times now without answering the above question, so can I interpret your refusal to answer questions about the Smithsonian article to mean that you are retracting it as a reference?

They have a THEORY and I have a theory the only difference is that my theory is backed up dna and cultural evidence.

What??!

YOU introduced the Smithsonian article as a reference to support YOUR claim! What do you mean by the above? Are you retracting the Smithsonian article then, as a reference supporting you? Here are YOUR words:

The tablet is confirmed and dated from the old world.....
the Smithsonian did an article about the tablet in 1979

what ties Joseph to the tablet is dna and the star of Ashur and other Assyrian symbols the Nez pierce tribe have.

Lets not forget that the tribe of Mensah Lehi tribe was under Assyrian rule for over 100 years before they left for North America.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2BYkIp ... gzZUU/edit

If you are now saying you are NOT offering the Smithsonian article as a reference and you are retracting it, then let's start over.

Please provide a reference re: the legitimacy and source of the tablet, how dna ties Joseph to the tablet, and how the tablet supports your Book of Mormon claims.

[_SteelHead]

Bomgeo has now linked to two articles he claims support:
That Chief Joseph had a 4k year old cuneiform tablet.
That tranoceanic voyages resulted in the injection of Polynesian dna into the Americas.

Neither of the articles he references actually support his assertions.
The chief Joseph article specifically says bomgeo's assertion is not supported by the evidence.
The dna article neither mentions tranoceanic voyages, nor any dna newer than 10k years old.

Is any one surprised?

[_bomgeography]

Bomgeo has now linked to two articles he claims support:
That Chief Joseph had a 4k year old cuneiform tablet.
That tranoceanic voyages resulted in the injection of Polynesian dna into the Americas.

Neither of the articles he references actually support his assertions.
The chief Joseph article specifically says bomgeo's assertion is not supported by the evidence.
The dna article neither mentions tranoceanic voyages, nor any dna newer than 10k years old.

Is any one surprised?

I offered the Smithsonian article to show that the artifact that chief Joseph had is a ancient tablet from the old world. When the tribe of Manasseh was under Assyrian rule they were exposed to Assyrian culture to include their writing system and religion. It explains why chief joseph has dna from iran and other Assyrian cultural symbols.

[_Themis]

I offered the Smithsonian article to show that the artifact that chief Joseph had is a ancient tablet from the old world. When the tribe of Manasseh was under Assyrian rule they were exposed to Assyrian culture to include their writing system and religion. It explains why chief joseph has dna from iran and other Assyrian cultural symbols.

There is no way to follow where the artifact came from, although it's obvious it came from the old world. It is lacking so much expected evidence from so many areas to suggest it's origins are in the America's. You have uncorroborated stories that are centuries after European arrival in the America's. And the relationships is tens of thousands of years old, and it's not with people who may have lived in Iran 20k or more years ago. It's that they find people living in Iran today who have distantly related DNA to them. We may not know where they were in the old world tens of k years ago when they had the same ancestors. People do move around.

[_Lemmie]

I offered the Smithsonian article to show that the artifact that chief Joseph had is a ancient tablet from the old world. When the tribe of Manasseh was under Assyrian rule they were exposed to Assyrian culture to include their writing system and religion. It explains why chief joseph has dna from iran and other Assyrian cultural symbols.

Actually no, when I questioned the article, you said this:

They have a THEORY and I have a theory the only difference is that my theory is backed up dna and cultural evidence.

So are you now retracting THAT statement and going back to your original position?

Themis summed it up pretty well, but to reiterate, the Smithsonian article does NONE of the things you attribute to it above.

from your 27 year old Smithsonian article:

It seems slightly more likely the tablet was simply mistakenly dated....that lone tablet wouldn't have been very convincing proof of the Indian-Near Eastern link.....So, no one really knows how or why this small archaeological item wound up at West Point.

So, the Smithsonian article did not confirm the dating, and does not have any verification for source.

It also does not support any dna connection. It also specifically states the opposite of your statement regarding the tablet providing a link to the tribes of Israel, noting that even as a hoax, the tablet isn't convincing.

Your reference actively disproves the theory you are using it for, and you have now used it, retracted it, and then tried to use it again, in the identically wrong and disproven manner as before.

So like I asked earlier, what is the point of giving a reference like this, and then discounting your own reference by calling it an unproved and 'different theory', and then going back to the SAME reference, and once again stating the same inaccuracies from several pages back that were already disproved?

Really, what is your intent here? This is starting to feel like some kind of clown car laps where the same silly stuff happens over and over again.

[_SteelHead]

Clown car.

[_bomgeography]

I offered the Smithsonian article to show that the artifact that chief Joseph had is a ancient tablet from the old world. When the tribe of Manasseh was under Assyrian rule they were exposed to Assyrian culture to include their writing system and religion. It explains why chief joseph has dna from iran and other Assyrian cultural symbols.

There is no way to follow where the artifact came from, although it's obvious it came from the old world. It is lacking so much expected evidence from so many areas to suggest it's origins are in the America's. You have uncorroborated stories that are centuries after European arrival in the America's. And the relationships is tens of thousands of years old, and it's not with people who may have lived in Iran 20k or more years ago. It's that they find people living in Iran today who have distantly related DNA to them. We may not know where they were in the old world tens of k years ago when they had the same ancestors. People do move around.

You stated distantly related the people in Iran with x2a'j is closely related. Outside of North America native Americans it is the only place you can find x2a.